Angry Minnesotans Take 3D Printer Away From Gunmaker

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Zombie_Moogle:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo

Honestly, I doubt throwing more guns at anything should be considered a valid solution to a problem. Probably just make unstable/violent areas of the world more unstable&violent.

Zombie_Moogle:

Excellent points, but a few counters for the sake of discussion

African militia groups are well armed & sociopathic, yes; but by no stretch do they outnumber the countries they reside in, or even the population of villages they plunder. They are simply better equipped.
Johannesburg is a modern metropolis & it wouldn't be terribly difficult to set up shop or ship from there, if we're just talking logistic. A stretch perhaps, but plausible.
& I have to disagree with you that Iran is stable. Massive protest within the nation are frequent & met with attacks from horse-mounted government thugs, but that discussion that could fill a thread in & of itself, so I'm reluctant to even bring it up for fear of further fragmenting this thread.

(All in all, great posts in here so far. Much less flaming than I expected :D )

It would have to be the population of villages that outnumber them, because you can't organise a country to efficiently show up in one place =D Even in villages a lot of people will be out at work or etc. You're definitely making me doubt myself though. Obvious examples would be that the militia would still be equipped with better guns but maybe a village could defend itself better. I don't really know enough about guns, what the range of effectiveness is between people who practise and people who don't. Maybe since the people who want guns already have them there's no harm in distributing more guns. Or maybe we could say that the problem of instability in those countries is that no matter who has the power, they haven't developed ways to force those people with power to act responsibly and it would happen again.

The Iran one though... I more convinced guns would be a bad thing. I'm just having the image of a riot where lots of people are armed and I just can't see that not ending with lots and lots of pointless death. I mean the London riots weren't exactly happy and they weren't well directed at the people the rioters were angry with either. Riots are messy and uncontrollable and if the people in London had guns the situation would have been bad enough. As it was there were casualties but people on both sides generally escaped with their lives, if guns were more numerous in London then more people would have paid with their lives. Rioters would receive the death penalty for civil disobedience from a scared frightened man who would also lose his life and the bystander who got hit by a stray bullet. They were firebombing stuff as it was. And Britain is so much more stable than Iran. At the same time the Iran military is plenty better armed and better equipped not to topple from plastic guns (probably) it might allow a Syria situation to develop more quickly, but as we can see from Syria, lots of people die and we don't even know that it's going to conclude in a positive way.

They're interesting questions, but they're interesting questions with the potential lives of thousands of people in the balance.

Whatever the case, I hope we both agree that some complete tool in Minnesota is not the person to empower with making these decisions. I don't know, but I hope you agree that making the 3D printing of guns itself is not a good solution. It would cause so much damage in countries with good gun control, if distributing weapons to developing nations was a way of stabilising them, maybe we could set up cheap low cost gun factories in Cape Town and subsidise them heavily, but I don't know if anyone could ever feel sure enough to take that risk

BrotherRool:
Whatever the case, I hope we both agree that some complete tool in Minnesota is not the person to empower with making these decisions. I don't know, but I hope you agree that making the 3D printing of guns itself is not a good solution. It would cause so much damage in countries with good gun control, if distributing weapons to developing nations was a way of stabilising them, maybe we could set up cheap low cost gun factories in Cape Town and subsidise them heavily, but I don't know if anyone could ever feel sure enough to take that risk

Probably not, but such is the march of technological progress; a march that occasionally takes us barefoot through drywall nails & broken glass :P

Kross:
The company that wants to use the printer to make gun parts is already making guns via other methods as well, right?

The point of Distributed Defense was not to make guns. It was to create what were effectively open source blueprints for guns, that anyone could use with a high enough quality 3d printer. If you live in the US it's MUCH cheaper to buy the barrel, metal stock, and time on a CNC machine than to even try to make a crappy plastic gun.

Zombie_Moogle:

BrotherRool:
Whatever the case, I hope we both agree that some complete tool in Minnesota is not the person to empower with making these decisions. I don't know, but I hope you agree that making the 3D printing of guns itself is not a good solution. It would cause so much damage in countries with good gun control, if distributing weapons to developing nations was a way of stabilising them, maybe we could set up cheap low cost gun factories in Cape Town and subsidise them heavily, but I don't know if anyone could ever feel sure enough to take that risk

Probably not, but such is the march of technological progress; a march that occasionally takes us barefoot through drywall nails & broken glass :P

You're right. At some point someone will do it and once the secret is out, there might not be much we can do about it. Maybe in Britain you could put a lot more regulations into the monitoring of 3D printers, but I can't see that lasting or working when they become cheap enough and the process becomes easy enough

This genie will not back into the bottle no matter what your personal opinion on the project is. Just like the nuclear bomb.

"Imagine if your biggest part in the human drama was to stand in the way of an innovation,"

Imagine if your biggest part in the human drama was to take away a libertarian's toy.

Zombie_Moogle:

What I meant was, in central Africa, the people there wouldn't be going up against an organized, modern military like those in Iran would. Iran has tanks and planes and other modern things, and those severely limit and/or nullify lightly-armed civilian resistance.

The "well it's not hard to get" argument isn't really valid, in my opinion. It isn't hard to get illegal hard-drugs like meth or heroine, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pass laws to attempt to control their spread and make it as difficult as possible to procure them.

Like I said, I'm in favor of gun-ownership, but I do think some things need to happen. We need to make extended clips and magazines illegal, first of all. No one needs a handgun with 30 rounds, or a semi-automatic rifle with 100. The gun-show loophole needs to finally be dealt with, and there needs to be some new regulations to finally catch up with internet gun sales.

I'm torn on assault rifles, and while an assault rifle ban probably wouldn't be a bad thing, such weapons have become so pervasive in the US that I don't know if it isn't already too late for that (Unless the gun show loophole was closed, any kind of assault weapons ban would be laughable weak as well).

Basically, the two reasons anyone needs to own a gun in the US is for self-defense, and for hunting/recreation shooting. You don't need extended mags for either of those (I'd argue that no one needs an assault rifle for either of those either, but that goes back to the above point). Let's not forget the fact that most of the random, massacre style shootings in this country are committed by people using *legally* bought and purchased firearms, magazines and ammo that they owned prior to shooting up a place, or bought legally for the occasion (statistics also show that the vast majority of those instances are done with assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns, both of which would be the most impacted by limitations in clip/magazine capacity).

Not doing something because "It probably wouldn't do anything anyway" is never a good thing. It is complacency, and all it accomplishes is letting the problem get worse. In my opinion of course.

I think we're disagreeing to agree here. My comment about illegal weapons being easy to acquire wasn't an argument for no regulation, as much as an argument for effective regulation. I don't personally think limiting clip size or banning particular types of weapons would solve anything. I do think that controlling the importation and sale of unregistered weapons would.
Now the real question is: how do we go about that without strapping on the jackboots? I'm honestly not sure[/quote]

Ahh, my mistake then. I just see the "gun control doesn't do anything" argument so often as a justification for no attempts at all for gun control :)

It's a tough issue, to be honest. If there are laws to limit clips and magazines, I'd imagine there would need to be a sort of 'grace period' where you could turn in the illegal items without repercussions. Then, when that's done, being found in possession of them would be illegal. As for controlling unregistered firearms and other illegal firearms... that's going to take good, old-fashioned police work... which, honestly, gets harder and harder with all the funding cuts to police stations around the country. Legalizing marijuana would probably help some. At least it would shift police manpower to hunting down and busting people who are selling something that actually hurts people.

Either way, it's certainly a tough issue, and completely impossible in the current government. The NRA would raise a fit, all the right-wing groups they puppeteer would join in and everyone would back off. Before we can even think about things like more efficient gun regulations, among other things, we'd need to get money and superPAC's out of politics (preferably with a constitutional amendment to negate the Citizen's United ruling). Until we do that, nothing can be done because the system is fundamentally broken and stacked against the vast majority of people.

And someone has opened pandoras box, you can now say goodbye to 3d printers ever becoming common place in the uk or any country with strict gun control laws. (lets not get into a argument about this but i agree with our governments laws on gun control at the moment)

ravenshrike:
The terms of the lease that they cited upon revocation explicitly required illegal action to have taken place. Since nothing was even built yet, let alone anything illegal, the revocation of the lease was invalid.

They actually didn't say that. Try again.

Zombie_Moogle:

That image right there is the perfect argument in favor of Defense Distributed. Smart money says the next village that group rolls into will wish it had the means to better arm itself.

The beautiful thing being that the people who can already afford the guns are more likely to have the financial means to acquire the printer and materials needed to make this work.

But at least the next village that group rolls into will still be able to wish for better means....As we've effectively better armed the people who already have access.

Starving, impoverished nations are going to afford all this how, exactly? Wishful thinking? I think people are too busy thinking about this magic ideal to deal with the actual logistics.

Assassin Xaero:
Reminds me of Balls of Fury...

Reminds me of weapon crafting in Dead Space 3 at a "work bench" type in what kind of gun you want have the materials and poof unregistered & untraceable guns for everyone.

Sorry Sally it looks like your mommy's killer won't be easy to find since he/she made his/her own gun and left it at the scene with no finger prints on it.

Wanting to open-source the ability to make weapons that can be easily smuggled onto an airline doesn't make you an innovative protector of Second Amendment rights and American Individualism(tm). I'm pretty sure it just makes you a world-class irresponsible dick.

Just so everybody knows, even if the 3D printer company allowed them to keep their printer, printed guns would not work. Having worked with multiple high-end printers in the past, it is highly unlikely that the material quality is no where near high enough to make something that would be able to withstand the forces involved in propelling a bullet.

xomocekc:

"Imagine if your biggest part in the human drama was to stand in the way of an innovation,"

Imagine if your biggest part in the human drama was to take away a libertarian's toy.

Oh my God, that was awesome. XD.

Callate:
Wanting to open-source the ability to make weapons that can be easily smuggled onto an airline doesn't make you an innovative protector of Second Amendment rights and American Individualism(tm). I'm pretty sure it just makes you a world-class irresponsible dick.

You say that as though there's a discernable difference.

ravenshrike:

Kross:
The company that wants to use the printer to make gun parts is already making guns via other methods as well, right?

The point of Distributed Defense was not to make guns. It was to create what were effectively open source blueprints for guns, that anyone could use with a high enough quality 3d printer. If you live in the US it's MUCH cheaper to buy the barrel, metal stock, and time on a CNC machine than to even try to make a crappy plastic gun.

So they want to make it easier for anyone to make the things needed to make the "real" guns by anyone with a high end printer? to then be able to make any number of real guns?

How would a printed gun be at all safe? I'm sure a homemade gun made of lego (the same material at least) totally won't explode in your hand on its first use.

I'm hoping there's more to the design than just printed parts.

No, no, no. There is a reason that you need a license to own a gun. If someone can download a CAD file and print their own gun, well, you elitist, wanker Brits who hold your barbaric lack of self-defense above us safer Americans will soon lose both your "safety" and your high ground.

tl;dr guns need to be regulated, even if the intent is positive, it will be abused.

Lucane:

ravenshrike:

Kross:
The company that wants to use the printer to make gun parts is already making guns via other methods as well, right?

The point of Distributed Defense was not to make guns. It was to create what were effectively open source blueprints for guns, that anyone could use with a high enough quality 3d printer. If you live in the US it's MUCH cheaper to buy the barrel, metal stock, and time on a CNC machine than to even try to make a crappy plastic gun.

So they want to make it easier for anyone to make the things needed to make the "real" guns by anyone with a high end printer? to then be able to make any number of real guns?

That was the ultimate goal. This specific project was meant as more of a proof of concept. After all, if they could do it at all, then they could see what exactly needed to be improved and how the printer and it's material might need to change. Not to mention 3d home printing is just starting to hit it's stride. Who knows what's going to be possible in a decade.

Ah innovation made cumbersome by idiots or greed.... A weapon is not to be fear...an idiot however is....

I'd like to ask those guys one thing:
You know that arming a group of people in undeveloped countries with AKs is gonna be cheaper than providing them with a 3D printer that can produce a laughably underpowered handgun, so why do you even pretend that this would be used by anyone other than people in first world countries who can't get a gun legally?
Also, a Bulgarian AK47 (one of the best makes, with a lightweight plastic stock) can be bought illegally for 200-300 bucks in Bulgaria. Chinese versions of the AK must be a lot cheaper.

DonTsetsi:
I'd like to ask those guys one thing:
You know that arming a group of people in undeveloped countries with AKs is gonna be cheaper than providing them with a 3D printer that can produce a laughably underpowered handgun, so why do you even pretend that this would be used by anyone other than people in first world countries who can't get a gun legally?
Also, a Bulgarian AK47 (one of the best makes, with a lightweight plastic stock) can be bought illegally for 200-300 bucks in Bulgaria. Chinese versions of the AK must be a lot cheaper.

Oh my good, stop standing in the way of innovation! Don't you understand that destroying oppression and achieving freedom is only possible through the Internet and open source software. This is why it was so important for people like Notch to take a stand against Windows 8.

DonTsetsi:
I'd like to ask those guys one thing:
You know that arming a group of people in undeveloped countries with AKs is gonna be cheaper than providing them with a 3D printer that can produce a laughably underpowered handgun, so why do you even pretend that this would be used by anyone other than people in first world countries who can't get a gun legally?
Also, a Bulgarian AK47 (one of the best makes, with a lightweight plastic stock) can be bought illegally for 200-300 bucks in Bulgaria. Chinese versions of the AK must be a lot cheaper.

Supposedly, in places like Western Africa and Yemen you can get an AK for under a 100 bucks.
The Chinese Type-56 is probably the most common among those, with around 15 million units built.

In some areas of the middle east, an RPG (even newer models like the RPG-29) can be had for 500 bucks or less.

And yeah, I laugh at everyone who claims that the Glock is proof that you can make a gun from plastic because it has a plastic frame. The important parts (the barrel, chamber and action, not to mention the *bullets*, are still metal). It's like saying you can make a functioning computer with just a CNC lathe because your laptop has a machined aluminium casing.

xomocekc:

DonTsetsi:
I'd like to ask those guys one thing:
You know that arming a group of people in undeveloped countries with AKs is gonna be cheaper than providing them with a 3D printer that can produce a laughably underpowered handgun, so why do you even pretend that this would be used by anyone other than people in first world countries who can't get a gun legally?
Also, a Bulgarian AK47 (one of the best makes, with a lightweight plastic stock) can be bought illegally for 200-300 bucks in Bulgaria. Chinese versions of the AK must be a lot cheaper.

Oh my good, stop standing in the way of innovation! Don't you understand that destroying oppression and achieving freedom is only possible through the Internet and open source software. This is why it was so important for people like Notch to take a stand against Windows 8.

I thought Notch just didn't have the money to pay for certification after redecorating his office. /jk

So...apparently somebody so watched Die Hard 2 and thought that was a good idea?

OP:I'd say that plastic guns should be outlawed, given their undetectability.

To anyone who is claiming that pouring more guns into unstable countries could stabilize them: Are you fucking mental?

No, fucking seriously, are you fucking mental?

It seriously boggles the mind. Guns do not make unstable countries stable, Government does. In places like the DRC there is not a popular revolution going on (Nothing like Syria, nothing like Libya.) but a bunch of warlords who go around raping and killing because the country essentially has no central government.

Anarchy can not be stabilized through access to more guns.

Finally, even though your arguments are "Theoretical", how exactly is an impoverished village in the DRC (for example) supposed to get hold of a 3D printer, access to the internet, electricity... You are talking about villages without wells, without access to sanitation, education, anything really.

OT: This sounds like one of the most fucking dumb ideas in history. The Libertarian movement never ceases to amaze me. Like Republicans all they serve to do is give people a bad name.

Helmholtz Watson:
OP:I'd say that plastic guns should be outlawed, given their undetectability.

I'd say plastic guns don't need to be outlawed, given their un-feasibility.

Anyone here remember the XM-8 program?
The Army wanted a new assault rifle, but one of the reasons they stuck with the old M4/M16 was that the large amounts of plastic used in its construction were prone to warping when exposed to the heat generated by the barrel during sustained automatic fire.
Now, in this case the plastic was on the *outside* of the gun. Could you imagine what would happen to a plastic barrel if you had a dozen bullets passing through it every second (ignoring the question how plastic rifling could spin a metal bullet, or how a plastic bullet could carry enough kinetic energy), or the little plastic gas tube with all the hot propellant gases flowing through it?

In the Riverworld novels, people are forced to resort to whole-plastic firearms due to an almost complete lack of metal in their world - however, they are vastly inferior to the metal-based guns they used to be familiar with, being nothing more than inaccurate single-shot smoothbore muzzleloaders with massively oversized bores to compensate for the low density of the plastic bullets.

The Plunk:

image

Okay do I have to be the one to point out the wedding dress. Lolwat

"Imagine if your biggest part in the human drama was to stand in the way of an innovation,"

"It's what this old world of legal hierarchy requires," said Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed. "I have to go through a legal process just to try something."

"I think it shows they really believe in a future where the gun is inalienable," said Wilson at the time, "a kind of faith in American individualism, the sovereignty of the individual."

Ahahaha are these people capable of saying a single goddamned thing that doesn't make them sound like massive cunts? They sound like they couldn't order a takeaway without bringing Ayn Rand into it.

Sounds like if they were able to make the guns, than start distributing/selling the plans. It would just "blow back" in the companies faces with all the lawsuits over so many people getting filled with plastic shrapnel when the gun exploded.

Bad idea from the start.

Hang on. I thought plastic or ceramic guns are Illegal as they can be used to bypass metal detectors.

Gun rights are human rights? WTF?

So that means since i live in germany my human rights are being surpressed and i shoul print a gun to fight my goverment because they are infringing on my god given right to carry a firearm wherever i want?

Cool story bro....

Johnson McGee:
How would a printed gun be at all safe? I'm sure a homemade gun made of lego (the same material at least) totally won't explode in your hand on its first use.

I'm seriously hoping you're saying that more for the lulz than seriousness. It's nice to make jokes about these being comparable to LEGO, but you do know there are far tougher plastics out there, right?

Like the ones GLOCK uses?

Assassin Xaero:

ravenshrike:

In America there are various forms you have to send to the ATF before you can make some kinds of firearm

Sorry Adam, but this is very, very wrong. Unless it is an NFA weapon or a full auto, no paperwork is needed. And for NFA weapons you just fill out the Form 1 on the BATFE's site and 200 dollars later you can make one. Can't make full-auto's though.

In any case, a single shot .22lr pistol, what they were trying to make, needs no paperwork. The fun part is gonna be when Cody Wilson sues that pants off of Stratasys for violating the terms of the lease.

Do you have anything to back that up, just out of curiosity? From my understanding, you need a license (or maybe it was just the tax stamp) to "manufacture" a weapon. For example, I have one of these:

And it is illegal for me to put a vertical grip on it without getting a tax stamp since it is manufacturing a weapon.

You would need a Form 4 tax stamp to do that, as by adding a grip or stock you'd be turning a pistol into a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) which is an NFA weapon. So in essence, you'd be manufacturing an NFA regulated weapon where there was none before.

In the case of creating non-federally regulated weapon, as long as you're not intending to sell them, there's no paperwork required.

Even as someone who is strongly for the (regulated)freedom to own a gun, I think the idea of easy to make, disposable, undetectable guns is a terrible idea, the good new is I can't see it working so there is no real danger of someone using this idea for crime.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here